Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

3. Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.240 of 2024 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj, the applicant - Devendra Alias Chhotelal has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

4. There are allegations against the named accused applicant and other co- accused persons of having executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the property which had already been sold. By deceitful means and to grab the money from the complainant, the accused persons prepared forged documents and on the basis that, sale deed was executed by them in respect of the already sold property.

5. It was brought to the notice of this Court that this is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected in the absence of the counsel.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was minor at the time of alleged sale deed. He never earned any wrongful gain in his favour. He has committed no fraud nor gained any benefit by applying illegal ways. The facts mentioned in the F.I.R. are totally false. The present applicant was not having any motive to cheat the innocent persons. In fact, the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the 2 NABAIL No. 8044 of 2025 applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter and no charge- sheet has been submitted so far in respect of the present applicant. It is further submitted that although charge-sheet has been filed against co- accused person but investigation against the present applicant is still going on. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the present accused applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons sold the property to the complainant by playing fraud to her and she suffered a huge financial loss. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no charge- sheet has been submitted in this matter against the present applicant and investigation is still going on.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also keeping into 3 NABAIL No. 8044 of 2025 account this fact that at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed, the applicant was a minor boy and the transaction was performed by his mother Smt. Savitri Devi on account of him, from the prosecution story and the materials available on record, it happens to be a dispute of probably civil nature which has been given a colour of criminal case and also considering the fact that if the property in question had already been sold in favour of some other person, no right was left with the accused persons to make any other transaction regarding the said land because they have been no longer the owner of the said land and further considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 25, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

3. Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.240 of 2024 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj, the applicant - Devendra Alias Chhotelal has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

4. There are allegations against the named accused applicant and other co- accused persons of having executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the property which had already been sold. By deceitful means and to grab the money from the complainant, the accused persons prepared forged documents and on the basis that, sale deed was executed by them in respect of the already sold property.

5. It was brought to the notice of this Court that this is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected in the absence of the counsel.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was minor at the time of alleged sale deed. He never earned any wrongful gain in his favour. He has committed no fraud nor gained any benefit by applying illegal ways. The facts mentioned in the F.I.R. are totally false. The present applicant was not having any motive to cheat the innocent persons. In fact, the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the 2 NABAIL No. 8044 of 2025 applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter and no charge- sheet has been submitted so far in respect of the present applicant. It is further submitted that although charge-sheet has been filed against co- accused person but investigation against the present applicant is still going on. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the present accused applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons sold the property to the complainant by playing fraud to her and she suffered a huge financial loss. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no charge- sheet has been submitted in this matter against the present applicant and investigation is still going on.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also keeping into 3 NABAIL No. 8044 of 2025 account this fact that at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed, the applicant was a minor boy and the transaction was performed by his mother Smt. Savitri Devi on account of him, from the prosecution story and the materials available on record, it happens to be a dispute of probably civil nature which has been given a colour of criminal case and also considering the fact that if the property in question had already been sold in favour of some other person, no right was left with the accused persons to make any other transaction regarding the said land because they have been no longer the owner of the said land and further considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 25, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)